http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59211
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: glisse
Date: Mon Feb 3 19:07:55 2014
New Revision: 207436
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207436root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-03 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59211
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59211
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #3)
IMO the explicit conversion is necessary here and the fact that it doesn't
work without it is not a bug. Note that a scoped enumeration
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59211
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59211
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Similar to PR 53017 (does the same +0 workaround work?). The main difference
with constructor seems to be a call to default_conversion.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59211
--- Comment #2 from Nadav Har'El nyh at math dot technion.ac.il ---
Amazing, this workaround indeed works :-) Thanks!
With the constexpr prio, indeed using prio+0 solved the problem.
For the enum class, prio::second, I can't use addition
